It's a PV or personal vaporizer, a personal inhaler to substitute for a cigarette. Battery-powered. I've switched to an alternative way of smoking and now I use this. What you can see is basically steam, it's a flavored vapor with nicotine if you want. You can get coffee flavor, chocolate, strawberry, whatever. Or tobacco of course. Also called an electronic cigarette but there's no smoke so no hazard.

As far as we know it's more or less harmless as all the ingredients - well, apart from the coffee flavor - are in medical inhalers. No danger to me or you.

That's what I got from Santa Claus for being a good guy (+ my christmas grass ), so far it is working, I totally replaced cigarettes (10-15 a day), and get my nicotine dose at affordable prices. Well my plan is to scale down the nicotine to 0 and quit, and that will be the tricky part I think, but as long as I am getting the right amount of nicotine I am happy with it._________________True ignorance is not the absence of knowledge, but the refusal to acquire it.
A posse ad esse non valet consequentia
Πάντα ῥεῖ

I totally replaced cigarettes (10-15 a day), and get my nicotine dose at affordable prices. Well my plan is to scale down the nicotine to 0 and quit, and that will be the tricky part I think, but as long as I am getting the right amount of nicotine I am happy with it.

Congratulations. From what I've heard from various friends and co-workers, the chemical addiction is "easy" to kick, it's the physical addiction which is difficult. Good luck!_________________42

I totally replaced cigarettes (10-15 a day), and get my nicotine dose at affordable prices. Well my plan is to scale down the nicotine to 0 and quit, and that will be the tricky part I think, but as long as I am getting the right amount of nicotine I am happy with it.

Congratulations. From what I've heard from various friends and co-workers, the chemical addiction is "easy" to kick, it's the physical addiction which is difficult. Good luck!

They biggest problem is friends that smoke, I usually end up smoking first passively and than light one ....
Hopefully it is less dangerous than real tobacco._________________True ignorance is not the absence of knowledge, but the refusal to acquire it.
A posse ad esse non valet consequentia
Πάντα ῥεῖ

Used it for tobacco and grass. Slowly winded me self off nicotine and don't vape tobacco now at all._________________There is, a not-born, a not-become, a not-made, a not-compounded. If that unborn, not-become, not-made, not-compounded were not, there would be no escape from this here that is born, become, made and compounded. - Gautama Siddharta

Johnny Depp has switched. So have Kate Moss, Leonardo DiCaprio, Bradley Cooper, Robert Pattinson, Paris Hilton and Lindsay Lohan. Lady Gaga goes both ways, and it’s been reported (though unconfirmed) that Ryan Seacrest might be in the closet about his preference. Then there was that infamous moment when Katherine Heigl actually did it on Letterman, “I bet I’m freaking y’all out right now!” she told her stunned host. “Someone better call the P.C. police!”

Actually replaces tobacco smoke with smoke produced by a propylene glycol solution (with water and nicotine).
And probably it is not a way to quit smoking but a way to keep inhaling nicotine without the risks involved with tobacco (or less risks) ..._________________True ignorance is not the absence of knowledge, but the refusal to acquire it.
A posse ad esse non valet consequentia
Πάντα ῥεῖ

so lets see - that 'mixture' or 'fluid' you are using is made by unknown parties in China and completely unregulated - what could go wrong? We are not talking about baby formula or toys...._________________Study finds stunning lack of racial, gender, and economic diversity among middle-class white males

so lets see - that 'mixture' or 'fluid' you are using is made by unknown parties in China and completely unregulated - what could go wrong? We are not talking about baby formula or toys....

That was always my concern too. I don't know whats in the liquid. I was buying organic tobacco for my vaporizer so I knew it was just tobacco without other shit in it._________________There is, a not-born, a not-become, a not-made, a not-compounded. If that unborn, not-become, not-made, not-compounded were not, there would be no escape from this here that is born, become, made and compounded. - Gautama Siddharta

Ethylene glycol is the older antifreeze so propylene glycol is presumably chemically similar. People who are die drinking it tend to perish from liver failure. It tastes sweet so it would be an idea way to poison a drunk or someone who likes syrupy soft drinks.

Ethylene glycol is the older antifreeze so propylene glycol is presumably chemically similar. People who are die drinking it tend to perish from liver failure. It tastes sweet so it would be an idea way to poison a drunk or someone who likes syrupy soft drinks.

People have been known to poison animals, most notably cats, with that stuff._________________The further a society drifts from truth, the more it will hate those who speak it.
George Orwell

That was always my concern too. I don't know whats in the liquid. I was buying organic tobacco for my vaporizer so I knew it was just tobacco without other shit in it.

Tobacco IS carcinogenic, no need to add other shit to get the effect

energyman76b wrote:

so lets see - that 'mixture' or 'fluid' you are using is made by unknown parties in China and completely unregulated - what could go wrong? We are not talking about baby formula or toys....

Not Chineese, mine is made in Italy (since 2007), but there are lots of companies that produce and sell them in the EU and US. In italy liquids that contains tobacco extracts (carcinogenic) are illegal like most chinese liquids....

sikpuppy wrote:

pjp wrote:

erm67 wrote:

smoke produced by a propylene glycol solution

Isn't that anti-freeze?

Ethylene glycol is the older antifreeze so propylene glycol is presumably chemically similar. People who are die drinking it tend to perish from liver failure. It tastes sweet so it would be an idea way to poison a drunk or someone who likes syrupy soft drinks.

Not toxic, is methabolized like alcool, Big Tobacco companies put it in tobacco as well to make it 'smoke' better:-)

Quote:

Propylene glycol is considered Generally Recognized As Safe by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration, and it is used as an humectant (E1520), solvent, and preservative in food and for tobacco products.

There have been lots of studies recently, and it compares favorably with tobacco, the toxicity of nicotine is the same, but without all the toxic (and carcinogenic and mutagenic) components of tobacco... Only long term effects on health are unknown, but short term well are studied.

Basically the alternatives to keep having nicotine are:
smoke tobacco that is universally known as carcinogenic
smoke propylene glycol added with nicotine that in the last 5-6 years did not show carcinogenicity

Of course quitting is the better solution but did not worked so far._________________True ignorance is not the absence of knowledge, but the refusal to acquire it.
A posse ad esse non valet consequentia
Πάντα ῥεῖ

That was always my concern too. I don't know whats in the liquid. I was buying organic tobacco for my vaporizer so I knew it was just tobacco without other shit in it.

Tobacco IS carcinogenic, no need to add other shit to get the effect

Correct me if im wrong, but tobacco is carcinogenic when smoked, but vaping doesn't combust the material so it shouldn't be carcinogenic, right?_________________There is, a not-born, a not-become, a not-made, a not-compounded. If that unborn, not-become, not-made, not-compounded were not, there would be no escape from this here that is born, become, made and compounded. - Gautama Siddharta

That was always my concern too. I don't know whats in the liquid. I was buying organic tobacco for my vaporizer so I knew it was just tobacco without other shit in it.

Tobacco IS carcinogenic, no need to add other shit to get the effect

Correct me if im wrong, but tobacco is carcinogenic when smoked, but vaping doesn't combust the material so it shouldn't be carcinogenic, right?

Tobacco chewers get cancer, tobacco is always carcinogenic .....

BTW. regarding the other kind of vaporizer, weren't you flying choppers? Here pilots have the hairs tested for drugs twice a year ... a friend of mine had to completely quit or lose the licence ..._________________True ignorance is not the absence of knowledge, but the refusal to acquire it.
A posse ad esse non valet consequentia
Πάντα ῥεῖ

What erm said. You can get cancer from chewing tobacco. The really nasty stuff is in the smoke, though.
Nicotine is very toxic as well, but not carcinogenic._________________Kali Ma
Now it's autumn of the aeons
Dance with your sword
Now it's time for the harvest

BTW. regarding the other kind of vaporizer, weren't you flying choppers? Here pilots have the hairs tested for drugs twice a year ... a friend of mine had to completely quit or lose the licence ...

I don't have a job, I'm not flying, so I don't care right now._________________There is, a not-born, a not-become, a not-made, a not-compounded. If that unborn, not-become, not-made, not-compounded were not, there would be no escape from this here that is born, become, made and compounded. - Gautama Siddharta

Yes. There is no safe form of tobacco. At least 28 chemicals in smokeless tobacco have been found to cause cancer (1). The most harmful chemicals in smokeless tobacco are tobacco-specific nitrosamines, which are formed during the growing, curing, fermenting, and aging of tobacco. The level of tobacco-specific nitrosamines varies by product. Scientists have found that the nitrosamine level is directly related to the risk of cancer.

In addition to a variety of nitrosamines, other cancer-causing substances in smokeless tobacco include polonium–210 (a radioactive element found in tobacco fertilizer) and polynuclear aromatic hydrocarbons (also known as polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons) (1).

when snuff tobacco, water-extracted snuff tobacco or snuff tobacco enriched with its own
aqueous extract was applied to a surgically created oral canal. However, the increase in
tumour incidence did not achieve statistical significance. In addition, snuff tobacco was
tested for carcinogenicity in rats by topical administration in a surgically-created oral
canal alone or in combination with herpes simplex virus type 1 infection. Squamous-cell
carcinomas of the oral cavity were observed in the group that received both treatments,
but this result was not statistically significant.
Rats given tobacco extracts by gavage showed a statistically non-significantly
increased incidence of forestomach papillomas and lung adenomas, and rats on a vitamin

3.1 Tobacco
3.1.1 Oral administration
(a)
Mouse
Groups [numbers unspecified] of male Swiss mice, 6–8 weeks of age, were adminis-
tered a tobacco extract (ethanol extract from 50 g tobacco diluted in 10 mL distilled
water) from a commercially available Indian chewing tobacco at a dilution of 1:25 or 1:50
[actual dose unspecified] by oral intubation for 15–20 months. A further group of mice
was fed a diet that contained an extract of 10 g tobacco per 5 kg diet for up to 25 months.
A group of 20 mice received distilled water only by intubation and served as controls.
Administration of the 1:25 dilution was terminated at 18 weeks because of high mortality.
Tumour incidences at 15–20 months were 0/4, 8/15 and 4/10 in the control, 1:50 dilution
and 1:25 dilution groups, respectively. At 21–25 months, 1/20 controls and 8/10 animals
fed tobacco extract in the diet had developed tumours. The types of tumour observed were
lung adenocarcinoma or hepatocellular carcinoma (Bhide et al., 1984b). [The Working
Group noted the incomplete reporting of the distribution of different types of neoplasm.]

Quote:

Mouse
Groups of 80 male strain A mice, 3 months of age, were exposed by inhalation to
powdered tobacco leaf on alternate days for 30 months or served as untreated controls. The
incidence of lung tumours (six alveologenic carcinomas, 35 squamous-cell carcinomas and
three ‘malignant adenomas’), leukaemia and hepatocellular carcinoma in animals surviving
to 30 months was: 12/75 [p < 0.001; Fisher’s exact test] and 1/80, 11/75 [p < 0.01; Fisher’s
exact test] and 2/80 and 3/75 and 0/80 in the treated and control groups, respectively
(Hamazaki & Murao, 1969). [The Working Group noted that, while the incidence of lung
tumours and leukaemia in treated animals was significantly increased, the incidence of lung
and liver tumours in the untreated mice was unusually low.]

Basically you cited the only experiment without cancers cases in the entire monography ...._________________True ignorance is not the absence of knowledge, but the refusal to acquire it.
A posse ad esse non valet consequentia
Πάντα ῥεῖ

3.1 Tobacco
3.1.1 Oral administration
(a)
Mouse
Groups [numbers unspecified] of male Swiss mice, 6–8 weeks of age, were adminis-
tered a tobacco extract (ethanol extract from 50 g tobacco diluted in 10 mL distilled
water) from a commercially available Indian chewing tobacco at a dilution of 1:25 or 1:50
[actual dose unspecified] by oral intubation for 15–20 months. A further group of mice
was fed a diet that contained an extract of 10 g tobacco per 5 kg diet for up to 25 months.
A group of 20 mice received distilled water only by intubation and served as controls.
Administration of the 1:25 dilution was terminated at 18 weeks because of high mortality.
Tumour incidences at 15–20 months were 0/4, 8/15 and 4/10 in the control, 1:50 dilution
and 1:25 dilution groups, respectively. At 21–25 months, 1/20 controls and 8/10 animals
fed tobacco extract in the diet had developed tumours. The types of tumour observed were
lung adenocarcinoma or hepatocellular carcinoma (Bhide et al., 1984b). [The Working
Group noted the incomplete reporting of the distribution of different types of neoplasm.]

Quote:

Mouse
Groups of 80 male strain A mice, 3 months of age, were exposed by inhalation to
powdered tobacco leaf on alternate days for 30 months or served as untreated controls. The
incidence of lung tumours (six alveologenic carcinomas, 35 squamous-cell carcinomas and
three ‘malignant adenomas’), leukaemia and hepatocellular carcinoma in animals surviving
to 30 months was: 12/75 [p < 0.001; Fisher’s exact test] and 1/80, 11/75 [p < 0.01; Fisher’s
exact test] and 2/80 and 3/75 and 0/80 in the treated and control groups, respectively
(Hamazaki & Murao, 1969). [The Working Group noted that, while the incidence of lung
tumours and leukaemia in treated animals was significantly increased, the incidence of lung
and liver tumours in the untreated mice was unusually low.]

Basically you cited the only experiment without cancers cases in the entire monography ....

oh look, you are unable to read! I was talking about SNUFF._________________Study finds stunning lack of racial, gender, and economic diversity among middle-class white males